Related Articles

For dental outpatients undergoing conscious sedation, recovery from sedation must be sufficient to allow safe discharge home, and many researchers have defined "recovery time" as the time until the patient was permitted to return home after the end of dental treatment. But it is frequently observed that patients remain in the clinic after receiving permission to go home. The present study investigated "clinical recovery time," which is defined as the time until discharge from the clinic after a dental procedure. We analyzed data from 61 outpatients who had received dental treatment under conscious sedation at the Hiroshima University Dental Hospital between January 1998 and December 2000 (nitrous oxide-oxygen inhalation sedation [n = 35], intravenous sedation with midazolam [n = 10], intravenous sedation with propofol [n = 16]). We found that the median clinical recovery time was 40 minutes after nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation, 80 minutes after midazolam sedation, and 52 minutes after propofol sedation. The clinical recovery time was about twice as long as the recovery time described in previous studies. In a comparison of the sedation methods, clinical recovery time differed (P = .0008), being longer in the midazolam sedation group than in the nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation group (P = .018). These results suggest the need for changes in treatment planning for dental outpatients undergoing conscious sedation.

Objectives

To observe procedural sedation practice within a district general hospital emergency department (ED) that uses propofol for procedural sedation.

Methods

Prospective observation of procedural sedation over an 11 month period. Patients over 16 years of age requiring procedural sedation and able to give informed consent were recruited. The choice of sedation agent was at the discretion of the physician. The following details were recorded on a standard proforma for each patient: indication for procedural sedation; agent used; depth and duration of sedation; ease of reduction; use of a reversal agent; complications and reasons for delayed discharge from the ED.

Results

48 patients were recruited; propofol was used in 32 cases and midazolam in 16 cases. The median period of sedation was considerably shorter in the propofol group (3 vs 45 min) but this did not confer a shorter median time in the ED (200 vs 175 min). There were no documented cases of over‐sedation in the propofol group; however, four patients in the midazolam group were over‐sedated, three requiring reversal with flumazenil. There were no other significant complications in either group. There was no difference in the median depth of sedation achieved or ease of reduction between the two groups.

Conclusions

Propofol is effective and safe for procedural sedation in the ED. Propofol has a considerably shorter duration of action than midazolam, thereby shortening the period of sedation.

Objectives. To review our sedation practice and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an anesthesiologist-administered intravenous sedation outside of the main operating room for pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in Thailand. Subjects and Methods. We undertook a retrospective review of the sedation service records of pediatric patients who underwent UGIE. All endoscopies were performed by a pediatric gastroenterologist. All sedation was administered by staff anesthesiologist or anesthetic personnel. Results. A total of 168 patients (94 boys and 74 girls), with age from 4 months to 12 years, underwent 176 UGIE procedures. Of these, 142 UGIE procedures were performed with intravenous sedation (IVS). The mean sedation time was 23.2 ± 10.0 minutes. Propofol was the most common sedative drugs used. Mean dose of propofol, midazolam and fentanyl was 10.0 ± 7.5 mg/kg/hr, 0.2 ± 0.2 mg/kg/hr, and 2.5 ± 1.2 mcg/kg/hr, respectively. Complications relatively occurred frequently. All sedations were successful. However, two patients became more deeply than intended and required unplanned endotracheal intubation. Conclusion. The study shows the clinical effectiveness of an anesthesiologist-administered IVS outside of the main operating room for pediatric UGIE in Thailand. All complications are relatively high. We recommend the use of more sensitive equipments such as end tidal CO2 and carefully select more appropriate patients.

Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.

The death of a patient under sedation in New South Wales, Australia, in 2002 has again raised the question of the safety of dental sedation. This study sought answers to 2 questions: Can safe oxygen saturation levels (≥94%) be consistently maintained by a single operator/sedationist? Does the additional use of propofol, in subanesthetic doses, increase the risk of exposure to hypoxemia? Three thousand five hundred cases generated between 1996 and 2006 were randomly examined and divided into 2 subcohorts: 1750 patients were sedated with midazolam and fentanyl, and 1750 patients received propofol, in subanesthetic increments, in addition to midazolam and fentanyl. Initial sedation was established using midazolam and fentanyl in both subcohorts. The second subcohort received propofol during times of noxious stimulation. Patient exposure to 2 or more oxygen desaturations below 94% was uncommon. The variables that were significantly associated with low saturations were age, gender, and weight. Neither the dose of midazolam nor the additional use of propofol was a significant risk factor. ASA classification (I or II) was not a determinant of risk. The data, within the limitations of the study, showed that a single operator/sedationist, supported by a well-trained team of nurses, can consistently maintain safe oxygen saturation levels. The additional use of propofol did not increase exposure to hypoxemia.

Objectives—This study compared intranasal midazolam (INM) with a combination of intravenous ketamine and intravenous midazolam (IVKM) for sedation of children requiring minor procedures in the emergency department.

Method—A single blinded randomised clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of a major urban paediatric hospital. Subjects requiring sedation for minor procedures were randomised to receive either INM (0.4 mg/kg) or intravenous ketamine (1 mg/kg) plus intravenous midazolam (0.1 mg/kg). Physiological variables and two independent measures of sedation (Sedation Score and Visual Analogue Sedation Scale) were recorded before sedation and at regular intervals during the procedure and recovery period. Times to adequate level of sedation and to discharge were compared.

Results—Fifty three patients were enrolled over a 10 month period. Sedation was sufficient to complete the procedures in all children receiving IVKM and in 24 of the 26 receiving INM. Onset of sedation was an average of 5.3 minutes quicker with IVKM than with INM (95%CI 3.2, 7.4 minutes, p<0.001). Children given INM were discharged an average of 19 minutes earlier than those given IVKM (95%CI 4, 33 minutes, p=0.02). Mean Sedation Scores and Visual Analogue Sedation Scale scores for the 30 minutes after drug administration were significantly better in children given IVKM compared with INM (2.4 and 1.8 versus 3.5 and 3.8, respectively). Both doctors and parents were more satisfied with sedation by intravenous ketamine and midazolam.

Conclusions—Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam used in an appropriate setting by experienced personnel provides an excellent means of achieving sedation suitable for most non-painful minor procedures for children in the emergency department. This combination is superior to INM in terms of speed of onset and consistency of effect. INM delivered via aerosol spray has a more variable effect but may still be adequate for the completion of many of these procedures.

The successful use of conscious sedation in patients physically dependent on centrally acting drugs is problematic for the dental anesthesiologist because of the concomitant development of tolerance to standard sedative agents. Dosage requirements necessary to adequately sedate these patients are often higher than recommended and carry an increased risk of drug overdose. The following report summarizes our experience with 18 drug-dependent patients in whom hypnosis was employed in conjunction with a standard sedation regimen. Attempts to complete various dental procedures while employing sedation alone on these patients had previously failed. All patients exhibited highly fearful or phobic behavior toward dental treatment as assessed by the Corah Dental Anxiety Scale. If an intravenous sedative regimen (midazolam or diazepam plus methohexital) was employed, hypnotic induction preceded the administration of the sedative drugs. If an intramuscular sedative regimen was employed (meperidine plus promethazine), the hypnotic induction took place after drug administration. With the combined hypno-sedative approach, treatment outcomes were judged to be good or excellent in 11 of 18 patients. Interestingly, in five of seven patients for whom the treatment outcome was rated poor or fair, the possibility of tolerance or cross-tolerance existed between a drug being abused and the sedative regimen. In contrast, this possibility existed in only 1 of 11 patients with good or excellent treatment outcomes. We conclude that hypnosis can augment the effects of sedation in this patient population. However, it is also important to choose a sedative regimen where tolerance is unlikely to exist.

There is very little information about the practice of sedation in Japan. Despite the remarkable advances in dentistry, fear and anxiety continue to be significant deterrents for seeking dental services. Most dental procedures can fortunately be undertaken with the aid of sedation. A comprehensive survey of all the dental schools in Japan was carried out to determine what sedation practices were used in Japan. All 29 dental schools in Japan possessed a dedicated department of anesthesiology at the time of this survey. The survey attempted to determine the specific sedation methods (techniques, routes of administration, and agents used in sedation) as well as practices (monitoring, fasting, location, education, and fees involved in sedation). The results indicate that there was a broad range in sedation practices. The Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology may wish to examine the findings of this study and may wish to formulate guidelines appropriate for the practice of sedation in Japan. Others may also wish to compare their own practices with those of Japan.

This study attempted to determine if sevoflurane in oxygen inhaled via a nasal hood as a sole sedative agent would provide an appropriate level of deep sedation for outpatient third molar surgery. Twenty-four patients scheduled for third molar removal were randomly assigned to receive either nasal hood inhalation sevoflurane or an intravenous deep sedation using midazolam and fentanyl followed by a propofol infusion. In addition to measuring patient, surgeon, and dentist anesthesiologist subjective satisfaction with the technique, physiological parameters, amnesia, and psychomotor recovery were also assessed. No statistically significant difference was found between the sevoflurane and midazolam-fentanyl-propofol sedative groups in physiological parameters, degree of amnesia, reported quality of sedation, or patient willingness to again undergo a similar deep sedation. A trend toward earlier recovery in the sevoflurane group was identified. Sevoflurane can be successfully employed as a deep sedative rather than a general anesthetic for extraction of third molars in healthy subjects.

Brain function monitors have improved safety and efficiency in general anesthesia; however, they have not been adequately tested for guiding conscious sedation for periodontal surgical procedures. This study evaluated the patient state index (PSI) obtained from the SEDline monitor (Sedline Inc., San Diego, CA) to determine its capacity to improve the safety and efficiency of intravenous conscious sedation during outpatient periodontal surgery. Twenty-one patients at the periodontics clinic of Baylor College of Dentistry were admitted to the study in 2009 and sedated to a moderate level using midazolam and fentanyl during periodontal surgery. The PSI monitoring was blinded from the clinician, and the following data were collected: vital signs, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS), medications administered, adverse events, PSI, electroencephalography, and the patients' perspective through visual analogue scales. The data were correlated to evaluate the PSI's ability to assess the level of sedation. Results showed that the RSS and PSI did not correlate (r = −0.25) unless high values associated with electromyographical (EMG) activity were corrected (r = −0.47). Oxygen desaturation did not correlate with the PSI (r = −0.08). Satisfaction (r = −0.57) and amnesia (r = −0.55) both increased as the average PSI decreased. In conclusion, within the limits of this study, PSI appears to correlate with amnesia, allowing a practitioner to titrate medications to that effect. It did not provide advance warning of adverse events and had inherent inaccuracies due to EMG activity during oral surgery. The PSI has the potential to increase safety and efficiency in conscious sedation but requires further development to eliminate EMG activity from confounding the score.

Flumazenil is an imidazobenzodiazepine that binds specifically to the central benzodiazepine receptor and antagonizes the actions of diazepam and other benzodiazepines. Previous studies in Europe have shown flumazenil at doses of 2 to 30 mg IV to reverse sedation in patients sedated with flunitrazepam, midazolam, and diazepam when evaluated by subjective criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine if flumazenil at 0.015 mg/kg IV was efficacious in shortening the recovery time of young, healthy dental patients sedated with diazepam (0.15 mg/kg IV) and restoring their psychomotor function to presedation levels. A total of 21 patients were randomized to placebo or flumazenil, sedated with diazepam, underwent a restorative dental procedure, and were then administered the test drug. Evaluations of psychomotor function by the Trieger test, Digit-Symbol Substitution test, Romberg test, and nurse questioning were carried out before sedation and at 10-minute intervals after test drug. Observations by the patients and nurses were not significantly different before versus after test drug. The investigator, however, found that flumazenil resulted in more rapid awakening. Patients treated with placebo exhibited significantly greater deficits in the number of dots missed and sum of deviations on the Trieger test than flumazenil-treated patients. Similar time-related deficits were recorded for the Digit-Symbol Substitution test. Flumazenil, at a dose of 0.015 mg/kg, was found to be efficacious in reducing the recovery time after diazepam sedation in dental patients.

Midazolam is a new water-soluble benzodiazepine with a much shorter pharmacologic half-life than diazepam. Despite this shorter pharmacologic half-life, several reports indicate that patients do not recover more rapidly after sedation with midazolam than with diazepam. The purpose of this study was to compare recovery of patients sedated with either midazolam or diazepam alone or in combination with fentanyl using the digit symbol substitution test (DSST) and Trieger test. Patients were randomly divided into treatment groups and recovery tests were administered to the patients prior to sedation and at 60, 120, and 180 minutes after achieving a standardized sedative endpoint. Patients who received midazolam alone had significantly fewer numbers of correct reponses on the DSST than patients who received midazolam plus fentanyl or diazepam with or without fentanyl. When midazolam was combined with fentanyl there was no significant difference between results obtained on the DSST when compared with either diazepam group. Comparisons between all groups using dots missed or millimeter deviation on the Trieger test showed no statistical difference between any groups. These data indicate that midazolam as a single IV agent has a slightly prolonged recovery phase compared to diazepam. The addition of fentanyl to the sedation regimen allows reduction in the midazolam dose resulting in a recovery time comparable to that of diazepam.

The relative efficacy and safety of drugs and combinations used clinically in dentistry as premedicants to alleviate patient apprehension are largely unsubstantiated. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of agents used for parenteral sedation through controlled clinical trials, it is first necessary to identify which drugs, doses, and routes of administration are actually used in practice. A survey instrument was developed to characterize the drugs used clinically for anesthesia and sedation by dentists with advanced training in pain control. A random sample of 500 dentists who frequently use anesthesia and sedation in practice was selected from the Fellows of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology. The first mailing was followed by a second mailing to nonrespondents after 30 days. The respondents report a variety of parenteral sedation techniques in combination with local anesthesia (the response categories are not mutually exclusive): nitrous oxide (64%), intravenous conscious sedation (59%), intravenous “deep” sedation (47%), and outpatient general anesthesia (27%). Drugs most commonly reported for intravenous sedation include diazepam, methohexital, midazolam, and combinations of these drugs with narcotics. A total of 82 distinct drugs and combinations was reported for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Oral premedication and intramuscular sedation are rarely used by this group. Most general anesthesia reported is done on an outpatient basis in private practice. These results indicate that a wide variety of drugs is employed for parenteral sedation in dental practice, but the most common practice among dentists with advanced training in anesthesia is local anesthesia supplemented with intravenous sedation consisting of a benzodiazepine and an opioid or a barbiturate.

Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.

Study Objectives:

Three of the most commonly used agents for conscious sedation in the Emergency Department (ED) are ketamine, fentanyl/versed, and propofol. In this study, we measured and compared the total times spent in the ED with each of these agents. Our objective was to determine whether the use of propofol for conscious sedation was associated with a shorter length of ED stay as compared to the other two agents.

Methods:

This was a consecutive case series. All patients who required procedural conscious sedation who presented to the ED at University of California, Irvine Medical Center from January 2003 through April 2004 were included in the study. The attending ED physician evaluated the patient and determined which medication(s) would be administered. All patients underwent procedural sedation according to the ED’s standardized sedation protocol. The times and dosages of administered medications and the sedation/consciousness level (SCL) scores were recorded by ED nurses at 3–5 minute intervals. Data was abstracted prospectively. The time to sedation (first dose of agent to SCL score of 2 or less) and time to recovery (last dose of agent to SCL score of 4) of the different regimens were then analyzed and compared.

Results:

Thirty-eight patients received propofol, 38 received ketamine, and 14 received fentanyl/versed. The mean times to sedation (minutes) were: propofol 4.5 (95% CI: 3.3–5.7), ketamine 10.6 (95% CI: 5.8–15.4), fentanyl/versed 11.5 (95% CI: 3.5–19.4). The mean times to recovery were: propofol 21.6 (95% CI: 16.1–27.1), ketamine 55.4 (95% CI: 46.2–64.5), fentanyl/versed 59.9 (95% CI: 20.3–99.5). Propofol had a statistically significant shorter time to sedation than both ketamine (p<.001) and fentanyl/versed (p=.022). Propofol also produced shorter recovery times than both ketamine (p<.001) and fentanyl/versed (p=.002).

Conclusion:

In this study, sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than with ketamine or fentanyl/versed. The use of propofol for conscious sedation in this non-randomized study was associated with a shorter ED length of stay.

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Conscious sedation, as used in dentistry and oral surgery, has been used satisfactorily to manage patients undergoing the intense pain encountered in radio frequency trigeminal rhizotomy for tic douloureux. The pain produced by this procedure cannot be blocked by local anesthesia. General anesthesia cannot be used because of the need for sensory testing in an awake, cooperative patient. Conscious sedation using alphaprodine, hydroxyzine, methohexital, and intensive behavioral modification was compared with a neuroleptic intravenous sedation technique using droperidol, fentanyl, and thiopental. Patients managed with conscious sedation were found to be more amnestic for the pain of surgery, a difference that persisted six months later.

Pediatric sedation is a challenge which spans all continents and has grown to encompass specialties outside of anesthesia, radiology and emergency medicine. All sedatives are not universally available and local and national regulations often limit the sedation practice to specific agents and those with specific credentials. Some specialties have established certification and credentials for sedation delivery whereas most have not. Some of the relevant sedation guidelines and recommendations of specialty organizations worldwide will be explored. The challenge facing sedation care providers moving forward in the 21st century will be to determine how to apply the local, regional and national guidelines to the individual sedation practices. A greater challenge, perhaps impossible, will be to determine whether the sedation community can come together worldwide to develop standards, guidelines and recommendations for safe sedation practice.

Background

State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.

Method/Design

This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.

Discussion

This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.

Trial registration

EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Background. Ketamine sedation has been found superior by physician report to traditional sedation regimens for pediatric endoscopy. Goal. To objectively compare sedation with ketamine versus midazolam/fentanyl for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Study. Patients received one of two regimens and were independently monitored using a standardized rating scale. Results. There were 2 episodes of laryngospasm during ketamine sedation. Univariate analyses showed patients sedated with ketamine (n = 17) moved more (median 25% of procedure time versus 8%, P = .03) and required similar low levels of restraint (0.83% versus 0.25%, P = .4) as patients sedated with midazolam/fentanyl (n = 20). Age-adjusted analyses suggested that patients sedated with ketamine were comparably more quiet (P = .002). Conclusions. A pilot trial of ketamine at our institution was associated with episodes of laryngospasm. In addition, children sedated with ketamine moved and required restraint similarly to patients sedated with midazolam/fentanyl. Physician perceptions may be affected by the fact that children who received ketamine were less likely to vocalize distress.

Patient-controlled sedation was utilized in patients aged 15 to 85 yr who were undergoing surgery under local or regional anesthesia. Midazolam, propofol, and methohexitone were used, either by themselves or in combination with fentanyl or alfentanil. Sedation was mild to moderate in the majority of patients, and operating conditions were good. The sedation method provided patients the ability to control the sedation and to vary the degree of sedation according to the environment and to the stress of the procedure. Sedation of the elderly, which tends to be problematic, was made easy using this method, and the elderly patients appeared to enjoy the option. The problems encountered were oversedation, respiratory depression, pain during injection, and postural hypotension.

Images

Objectives

To conduct a prospective survey in a teaching hospital emergency department to evaluate performance according to safe sedation principles, to establish the demographics of those sedated, and to review the drugs used and doses given to patients in the department. Any adverse events were reviewed for identification of preventable causes.

Methods

Pre‐sedation checklists, peri‐procedural observations, and patient notes were reviewed for 101 cases from 4 December 2004 to 3 September 2005. There are departmental guidelines outlining the principles of safe sedation.

Results

Emergency department procedural sedation was performed for a variety of acute conditions in patients aged from 7 to 91 years old. A variety of sedation agents were administered, morphine and midazolam being used most frequently. Drug administration, maximum sedation level, and time to recovery and discharge were recorded. Four adverse events were reported, none of which were clinically significant. Departmental guidelines were followed.

Conclusion

Emergency department sedation is a safe and effective procedure if appropriately trained practitioners follow the principles of safe sedation.

Introduction

Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, randomised, single-centre study, a total of 80 patients (18 to 75 years old), who had undergone cardiac surgery, were postoperatively assigned to one of two treatment regimens for sedation in the ICU for 12 to 72 hours. Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group received remifentanil (6- max. 60 μg kg-1 h-1; dose exceeds recommended labelling). Propofol (0.5 to 4.0 mg kg-1 h-1) was supplemented only in the case of insufficient sedation at maximal remifentanil dose. Patients in the midazolam/fentanyl group received midazolam (0.02 to 0.2 mg kg-1 h-1) and fentanyl (1.0 to 7.0 μg kg-1 h-1). For treatment of pain after extubation, both groups received morphine and/or non-opioid analgesics.

Results

The time intervals (mean values ± standard deviation) from arrival at the ICU until extubation (20.7 ± 5.2 hours versus 24.2 h ± 7.0 hours) and from arrival until eligible discharge from the ICU (46.1 ± 22.0 hours versus 62.4 ± 27.2 hours) were significantly (p < 0.05) shorter in the remifentanil/propofol group. Overall costs of the ICU stay per patient were equal (approximately €1,700 on average).

Conclusion

Compared with midazolam/fentanyl, a remifentanil-based regimen for analgesia and sedation supplemented with propofol significantly reduced the time on mechanical ventilation and allowed earlier discharge from the ICU, at equal overall costs.

The oral transmucosal formulation of fentanyl citrate (OTFC) has been reported to be an effective sedative, providing convenient and atraumatic sedation for children prior to general anesthesia or painful diagnostic procedures. Thirty-three young children (24-60 months of age) scheduled for outpatient general anesthesia for treatment of dental caries were enrolled in this randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. To determine the effectiveness of the OTFC premedication, patient behavior was evaluated using three distinct outcome ratings. A sedation score rated behavior in the waiting room prior to OTFC as well as 10 minutes and 20 minutes after OTFC. A separation score rated the child's response to being separated from his/her parent or guardian for transport to the dental operatory. Finally, a cooperation score rated the child's acceptance of the mask induction. The OTFC formulation was well tolerated by most of the children in this study. Compared with the placebo oralet, the active OTFC improved behavior for separation from the parent (P < .05) and cooperation with the mask induction (P < .05). The duration of surgery and the time of recovery did not differ between placebo and active premedication. Side effects including respiratory and cardiovascular complications were reported more frequently in the active fentanyl group. Continuous monitoring of respiratory function is essential when using this unique and effective formulation of fentanyl for pediatric preanesthetic sedation.